I agree - one has to have some clear thoughts about characters and events before one can start. I would file that under ideas which lead me to writing.
I should specify: “linear writing”. For me, it means that after having my ideas clarified (in my head and in writing mostly cryptically, spontaneous notes that no one could actually make sense of but me) I will let the story develop with those ideas. I do strive to hit certain points in the narrative which were unformed ideas before - but if the characters lead me to something else, I have discovered it is better to scrap ideas I had before and let it all unfold as it wants to.
I have found the same thing. At times I feel like a stenographer taking down dialogue–I start with an idea of why the characters are in each other’s presence and what they want ot get out of each other (or think they want to get out of each other), but once they start talking, I am amazed sometimes at the things they reveal and the actions they take.
You make some valid points. I suppose the pay-off is usually harder than the set up, it’s just that in the case of Killgrave Tennant’s performance was one of the big reason he was so effective and it seems almost unthinkable to do the build up without him.
I’m actually at the beginnings of a writing project right at the moment. I’ve got a second Word document open just for notes, including list of things that need to be introduced for later pay-off. Hopefully I’ll be able to introduce them organically without then feeling too much like set-up.
I tend to agree with @odd_jobbies on this, build up is generally easier than pay off, but I do wonder how much of that is audience expectation? A pay off is at the mercy of the audience pre-developed ideas, only some of which are given from by the author, many are from their own life experiences.
This is all irrelevant to SJ Clarkson though, they’re worries for Melissa Rosenberg. Clarkson’s job was much more setting style and tone, helping the actors find a performance that they’re going to carry for at least another 12 hours of television. Essentially Clarkson was there to make what Rosenberg wanted this world to be the same one the audience saw and (ideally) felt.
Sorry to barge in, but I have to say i agree with this. Throughout my novels, I’ve always found interesting where the characters and story led me and so, themselves, knowing all to well that it’s my active unconscious who’s running the show. It’s the most interesting aspect of artistic creation, to me at least.
Agreed. If the script and story hangs together well, any director should jump at it, however if it seems at all that the producers are rushing forward just to get a film out to get the money in the coffers, and the script isn’t even finished, everyone will avoid it like the plague. Everyone saw what happened to QoS, because of the unfinished script due to the writers’ strike, and with the media hooha around this, no one is going to want to jump in and take the chance. And why should they.
On the other hand, if you take over now a Bond production that’s already under pressure before the first frame, and if it turns out well…that would give a director’s career a huge boost. Saving Eon, MGM and Universal a lot of trouble and considerable funds, which would no doubt also translate to much more favourable conditions to make BOND 26, if so desired.
While if it doesn’t turn out fine it’s just the fault of the whole troubled backstory.
Of course it all depends on what kind of material they actually have now - whether one script, two scripts or a load of tosh and media/hype…everything seems possible. But if there is some halfway decent basis, then a director willing to take a few risks could get his/her hands on a once-in-a-lifetime chance.
Getting a chance to direct a Bond, with guaranteed worldwide exposure and blockbuster status - everybody would jump at that chance. The quality of the script? Who cares. Yeah, maybe in the press.
Absolutely - the script is more or less an item for us fans and the tabloids of course. All people will care about is whether they like the film - and that need not be a question of the script.
As I go through the ludicrously long credits of Marvel’s Spider-man on PS4, it reminded me of something brought up by @secretagentfan on this thread - do people ACTUALLY think of the livelihoods of others when they make decisions on artistic ventures - I’ve long thought you shouldn’t be able to write or say something nasty or bitchy about a work if you can’t name all the people who worked on it, given how a negative reaction is going to affect all their careers…
Who would avoid that scenario like the plague? The kind of directors you’d want to do Bond - those worth their salt and don’t need to enter into to a QoS situation.
So that opens the door to those who wouldn’t have otherwise had a chance to do Bond, Such as Bart Layton. His cv is wafer thin for a Bond contender:
It’s not nessisarily a bad thing, if circumstances (financial nessesity of meeting the release date being > the film itself being of a high standard) forces MGM/Eon to take a risk on someone. Maybe we’ll get a very refreshing take on it!
But just how desperate are the studio? Layton has one well reviewed film4 movie and a well reviewed doc 6 years ago to his name (before that it’s TV’s Banged Up Abroad - I’ve cut a sister show and they all consist of cheesy reconstructions which are lowest common denominator Bish-bash-bosh filmmaking).
Is his presence on an apparent new studio ‘short list’ a sign of just how amazingly showstopping American Animals is, or a sign that they are very desperate indeed to meet that release date and are willing to go down market because bond25 possibly looks like a poison chalice to others.
Hopefully the formaer. But if it’s the latter then I implore the shareholders to swallow the temporary profit dent and go into the 25th movie in thier billion dollar franchise with the talent and prep it deserves.
Heck, even Spielberg said: give me something to prove that I still am that kind of Spielberg who does fun films… hence “Ready Player One”. He did not need it - but he wanted it - and could use it. And he also kind of needed it, for his ego, I guess.
And do we really want the kind of director who says: I only want Bond if I can do exactly what I want - not what Bond needs?
